Where Islam spreads, freedom dies

"Who will show me the way to walk between the raindrops without getting wet?"

This is the cry of all Europeans who watch in dismay as their countries are repopulated with alien hordes. A warped ethical system has brought this about. Yet they, too, have so internalised the tenets of this warped ethical system that they cannot free themselves from its grip even after they have become aware of the danger. They are trying to find a way to stop themselves being minoritised within their own countries, and ruled by Mohammedan hordes, but only if it satisfies their rarefied ethical standards. "No violence, no racism, no antisemitism, no people with poor grammar, no one who doesn't respect human rights." But it is these rarefied ethical standards that have conjured the threat into being in the first place.

That is the tragedy of modern Europe. And the most tragic part of the tapestry is the Counterjihad movement. Because those are the people who see the danger coming more clearly than anyone. Yet even they can't free themselves from the oppressive ethical codes that set in motion the islamisation of their countries, as we saw from their non-reaction to the takedown of Golden Dawn.

There is no way to walk between the raindrops without getting wet. No matter how much time and effort you spend looking for the fabled route, you will never find it.

"At least we weren't racist or antisemitic." As things are, that looks likely to be the epitaph of Europe.

I don't think it's asking too much of anyone to request that they recognise that such things as peoples exist, that they have distinctive genetic identities, that they have moral entitlements to homelands of their own, and that their shared genetic affinity, as demonstrated in scientific experiments, maximises the sense of empathy in their society, helping it to function well.

Similarly, I don't think it's asking too much to expect people to recognise that the moral ideal of anti-nationalism has had extraordinarily destructive effects, most especially when embodied in the ideologies of Communism and multiculturalism; nor to ask them to recognise that islamisation is a side of effect of this ideal being applied at the policy level through support for loosely-restricted immigration; nor, I dare to hope, is it unreasonable to expect a general recognition of the fact that diaspora Jews have been disproportionately involved in promoting anti-nationalist ideas and ideologies. It can never be unreasonable to expect people to recognise obvious facts.

In any case, even if it is not strange that non-Europeans living in European societies, in pursuit of their own selfish purposes, deny Europeans the moral right to their own Europeanness, it certainly is strange that the Europeans allow themselves to be influenced by this clearly self-serving adversarial agenda; that they should be unwilling to assert their own interests as ruthlessly as the non-Europeans assert theirs; and, ultimately, that they should let themselves be intimidated into giving up their ancestral homelands. In other words, it is strange that Europeans permit their own extremely high ethical standards to be used as a weapon against them by self-serving and even hostile non-Europeans; and that even when they become aware of the effects of this manipulation, as if fatally hypnotised, they still cannot resist it.

"..Jews have been disproportionately involved in promoting anti-nationalist ideas and ideologies.."

the same song again.Theodor Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, Zeev Zhabotinsky were European Jews.they promoted NATIONALIST ideas.

you hate them exactly because of that.give you any Jew, you will find reason to hate anyway.

among Jews and non-Jews, there were nationalists and anti-nationalists.among Jews, the % of people with high IQ is larger, so they are disproportionate, in many areas where one needs to think better and faster than others.not only in selfish machinations and wrong ideologies.

but because you are envy, you substitute lies for truth (by giving truth selectively).both are sins.:)

Jews lived in Europe before Hungarians.they are not less Europeans than Hungarians.you consider Hungarian Jobbik your allies - not because they are more Europeans but because they are antisemites.

that is not monopoly of Europe, and even Anglosphere, anymore.there are Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore. they are improving.they are among top minds and skills of humanity.

utopian egalitarianism and cultural relativism, whoever invented it - are not "high standards" at all, - they are wrong, and therefore weak, and under pressure of jihadi invasion, are morphing into suicidal idiotism.if it was Japan, it would destroy Japan the same way it corrupts Europe.

there is definitely a problem with immigration of Pakistani family of radical imam with 4 wives and 40 childrenthere is no problem with immigration of Japanese Theoretical Physics professor.or South Korean virtuoso violinist.or, - it will be intolerable to read but yes - even Israelis, of that type.if you are not jerk, can live free in free society, then we can leave you alone. it is named cooperative civilization.

that is up to citizen to decide how many nationalism they want to have.certainly one must preserve heritage, language, culture - otherwise people won't know the value of collective achievement.but to declare nationalism the only remedy, live in sectioned zoo again?well, someone might choose that....

The Jews you mention promoted nationalist ideas for Jews. I haven't read enough about them to know whether they were sympathetic to nationalism generally, as a general principle for organising the world. Certainly, many modern Jews seem to experience no difficulty in endorsing nationalist principles for Israel and anti-nationalist principles everywhere else.

You say Jews lived in Europe before Hungarians. First, I doubt very much that incoming Hungarians wholly extirpated the indigenous population living in the land that we now know as Hungary. The general pattern for conquests of this type is that the indigenes and incomers simply merge into one another. If Jews had set up in a compact homeland of their own somewhere in Europe and built a durable society there, I would be happy to acknowledge them as an authentic European people entitled to their own homeland here. But they lived in other people's homelands. And because that made them vulnerable, they began to promote utopian cosmopolitan ideologies that delegitimised the very idea of people possessing homelands of their own. And those ideologies had catastrophic effects.

There is some truth in what you say, that Jews can be found on both sides of many arguments. But here's what I find creepy. The Jews on one side of an argument, like those in the Counterjihad movement, tend not to criticise the Jews on the other side of the argument. Not only will they not do it, they will react hysterically when anyone else does it, and accuse them of being motivated by a general hatred for Jews, as you do here.

You say there are Jews who support nationalism. Is that Jewish nationalism only or nationalism as a general principle? Which Jews support nationalism as a general principle?

Countries are not economic machines. There is no problem with small-scale immigration of talented people. But past a certain point, immigration is genocide, regardless of how talented the immigrants are. No people can preserve its own culture and identity if its living space is swamped by aliens.

The high ethical standards I speak of are the attempt to go beyond the ethics of kin group preference towards objective standards of merit and moral conduct. Kin group preference is the default ethical standard of humanity and all non-European peoples, including Jews, still live their lives guided by it. Only Europeans have made a sustained effort to go beyond it. And unfortunately that effort is destroying them.

>>The general pattern for conquests of this type is that the indigenes and incomers >>simply merge into one another

Nope.General pattern is conquest, submission, in many cases genocide.The winner imposes language, culture, administration.That is what Hunns did and Jews didn’t do to the people who lived in the place that is today Hungary.

>>they began to promote utopian cosmopolitan ideologies that delegitimised the very >>idea of people possessing homelands of their own.

Ever heard about French Enlightenment?Napoleonic totalitarianism?Even Roman Empire was already cosmopolitan.Romans didn’t like “the very idea of people possessing homelands of their own”, when they expelled Jews from Judea.(But Jews are, certainly, to blame for that, and for getting the idea of cosmopolitanism)

>>The Jews on one side of an argument, like those in the Counterjihad movement, >>tend not to criticise the Jews on the other side of the argument.

I see, the time is late.Where can you find a pro-jihadi Jew “on the other side of the argument”?But that oxymoron makes your sentence “consistent”..:)

>>Which Jews support nationalism as a general principle?

it is just interesting to know - who supported it among non-Jews? only you? no, honestly.don't think there were ever such idiots, to promote the rights of competing neighbours for their nationalism.…

The whole anti-Jewish thing is one reason people don't take these groups seriously, the public immediately thinks of neo-nazis when that stuff starts. Though I do completely agree with the push to take back what is rightfully ours. The first poster just sounds like a jackass, accusing other people of being "racists" while failing to see that it is they who are the racist for trying to destroy their own country and fellow people. Why are people so stupid these days?

The DNA of the people is often surprisingly little changed by a foreign "conquest". The conquerors are often a tiny minority of the population and, genetically speaking, are simply absorbed into it. That's how it was in the Norman Conquest of England, for example.

"Ever heard about French Enlightenment?"No one claimed Jews were the only ones who ever promoted cosmopolitan ideas. Communism and multiculturalism picked up on the ideas of Enlightenment cosmopolitanism.

"Napoleonic totalitarianism?Even Roman Empire was already cosmopolitan."Any empire that conquers large swathes of territory belonging to other peoples necessarily acquires a cosmopolitan tinge, in practice if not in principle. Nonetheless, at its root, an empire is based on nationalist aggression, not philosophical cosmopolitanism.

"Where can you find a pro-jihadi Jew “on the other side of the argument”?"Pro-Islam Jews are ten a penny. I made a post about some of them yesterday here. I even have a special tag for them "Jews for Hitler". Type it in.

"it is just interesting to know - who supported it among non-Jews? only you? no, honestly.don't think there were ever such idiots, to promote the rights of competing neighbours for their nationalism."Lots of Europeans have advocated nationalism as a general principle for humanity. Herder, for example.

>>The Jews on one side of an argument, like those in the Counterjihad movement, >>tend not to criticise the Jews on the other side of the argument.

a bit more on this.certainly anti-Zionist leftis like Noam Chomsky, Jstreet and Norman Finkelstein are criticized by other Jews.

in Israel proper, there is lefti "Shalom Ahshav" movement, far left parties in Knesset.there are constant political battles there.people on "opposite sides of the argument" try to discredit and destroy an opponent.Jews aren't myphological creatures, in this regard, - they behave as everyone else.

you are rolling and rolling out statements that are demonstrably wrong.

when it is about Jews, you don't seek truth, only a way to justify your prejudice. ...

Cheradinene Zakalwe,Holocaust propaganda is the sword and shield of world Jewry. Anytime anyone criticises a Jew you are called a nazi. So help to get rid of this propaganda weapon by exposing it. Watch the David Cole documentary here - http://codoh.com/library/categories/1167 - 1 hour of your time to see how you have been lied to. Cole is a Jew who is a holocaust revisionist. If you disagree with the documentaries at CODOH feel free to contact them and point out their mistakes. They don't believe in imprisoning people if they disagree with them on a historical issue like the EU countries that have a "holocaust denial" law. They are genuine about human rights including the right to freedom of speech.

I just don't see how the theory that Jews don't criticize each other holds true. I have pretty much only seen criticism of George Soros on Zionist websites, and wouldn't be at all surprised if some in those circles dedicate the majority of their energy to despising him. In turn, Soros was born Jewish but has done more to hurt Jews and promote Islam than anyone alive that I know of.

What I truly and seriously find good is that the demographic structure europe can no longer be supported. The earlier the europeans accept this, the better. Some cities are now truly colourful and no longer aryan white and you cannot say anything against it... I would be glad to give up white Europe, but i would loathe it to give up democratic Europe.

Those comments clearly do support the idea that some Jews (although a small minority that the rest despise), are happy about the end of Western Civilization.

One cannot help but notice that on the left Jews are vilified for being Capitalists, and on the right they are vilified for being Communists. When one is Jewish or has extensive personal experience with Jews, the idea that there is a tribal plot becomes totally absurd, therefore other aspects may be focused on. To say that this is because of an unwillingness to criticize each other seems highly unlikely. It is much more reasonable that attention elsewhere is more relevant to the issues at hand, and the obsessive focus on Jews by both the right and left is what is problematic.

most gang members in america are Christians, do they represent all christians everywhere? One can go on and on forever listing off psychopathic Christians, and it is true that there is no scarcity of terrible Jews, I've met many who are even more heartless than the caricatures suggest.

However the difference between Islam and other religions and/or people descended from those religions is that every single Muslim is permanently at war with the infidels, and only when the infidels surrender will there be "peace", that is why it is the religion of peace.

People are welcome to discredit themselves with double standards all they want, anti-Semitism is between oneself and God, but the charade of pretending it is fair or logical is tiresome and disingenuous.

What you and much of the so-called Counterjihad movement omit to mention is that Islam is only a serious problem for us because of immigrationism and the elite's promotion of diversity and anti-nationalism as moral ideals. Islam, abominable as it is, would be a very limited problem for us if Muslims were in their own countries. So the question is how did these warped moral ideals come to dominate the western world? There is no way to solve the Islam problem without challenging and, ultimately, dethroning these ideals. That is what all the politically correct Counterjihad clownboys fail to grasp.

conflated with, and being fed by the remnants of Christian, Enlightenment, and Marxist universalism, these paradigms started the whole MC/PC prostetic brains industry in the West, - white guilt, positive discrimination, human rights without human moral, etc.

there is also influence of post-modern art tradition, with its intensive lust for deconstruction, disproportion, desecration and intimdation, - that subdued artistic mainstream and saturated it by dehumanizing and violent tendencies.

these are all not secrets.anthropoly details on anthropology were nicely summarized by Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt, one can find e.g. on the site "edge.org". (they are most likely Jews, - leftis but not blindly PC/MC)....

Hating Jews and applying double standards to them ( every internet troll complains being called an anti-semite infringes on their free speech, virtually none complain about the risk of death from criticizing Islam) is quite trendy amongst many circles, yet the problem persists. If that was the issue, the dethroning is already complete. Personally I think that the morality of Jesus inherently has no chance against the morality of Prophets and Gods who made it rain blood. Not many agree, but one article does that is kind of interesting http://conservativedemocrats.20m.com/photo3.html . Anyway, for the record, not associated with any movement : )